Video: The Presidator?

posted at 9:26 am on December 22, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger told 60 Minutes last night that he wouldn’t mind a bit if Congress and the states amended the Constitution to allow non-native-born citizens the ability to become President. In fact, he’d celebrate in all 50 states by throwing parties, giving speeches, and, er … asking people to vote for him for the top job (via Radio Vice Online):

“The fire season has been extended by climate change”? Really? I lived in California for most of my life, and fire season has always been in autumn. When did these fires hit? In November. In 1997, the year I left California for good, the fires hit at the end of October.

The Governator misses two better reasons why California gets hit by wildfire: droughts and poor forest management. Southern California is essentially a desert with a couple of big man-made oases developed by massive aqueducts and water management. It gets dry constantly, especially in the foothills.  That’s why proper forest management to clear deadwood and to keep brush low is essential, but California forestry officials get constantly hampered by environmentalists who object to disturbing habitats.  That leaves a lot of dry, dead fuel to ignite in these blazes, which accounts for more and hotter fires.

If this is an example of what a Schwarzenegger administration would look like, skip the amendment.  We’ve already elected Obama once.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I got your point; however it is a logical red herring, for several reasons, not the least of which being that a qualifying criterion is not a judgment. i.e. it is not a judgment to place qualifying criteria on the ability to procure a drivers license, or security clearance.

I didn’t say that the requirement was a judgement, I said that because I trusted the judgement of the American voter, this requirement isn’t needed.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 4:04 PM

Arnold for Senate 2010. Not President.

chip91 on December 22, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 3:49 PM

That’s not wriggling, that’s laughter at your awe inspiring sense of self worth.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 4:08 PM

I didn’t say that the requirement was a judgement, I said that because I trusted the judgement of the American voter, this requirement isn’t needed.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 4:04 PM

That is the most idiotic statement I’ve ever seen. Why have a counstituion or laws at all. Put it all to a vote!

The reason this doesn’t work lies in the fundamental difference between a democracy and a democratic republic. We live in the latter, because the first form doesn’t work. Mob rule takes over, and it becomes anarchy.

Marine_Bio on December 22, 2008 at 4:11 PM

That’s not wriggling, that’s laughter at your awe inspiring sense of self worth.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 4:08 PM

All I’ve done is hold up a mirror to you. You can’t seem to keep from lunging at your own image like a little kitten.

How long will you keep it up before your nose gets sore?

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 4:14 PM

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 4:04 PM

Not to mention that you implicity trust the voters who can’t find the United States on a map of the United States, or who could tell you who just got kicked off American Idol but not why there are 365 1/4 days in a year.

Marine_Bio on December 22, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Arnold for Senate 2010. Not President.

chip91 on December 22, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Nice idea. I don’t love the Governor, but he’d be an improvement over Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein.

El_Terrible on December 22, 2008 at 4:19 PM

I’m sorry Arnold, but your flip flopping between your speech for McCain/Palin and the Prop 8 fiasco means you have no chance in hell… and what’s more America will never make that Amendment.

Kaptain Amerika on December 22, 2008 at 4:25 PM

I didn’t say that the requirement was a judgement, I said that because I trusted the judgement of the American voter, this requirement isn’t needed.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 4:04 PM

so you voted for Obama huh?

Kaptain Amerika on December 22, 2008 at 4:27 PM

I think a lot of you need to watch “little Nikita” again and come back to the conversation…

Kaptain Amerika on December 22, 2008 at 4:35 PM

So, Arnold thinks he is presidential material. As I remember when he took office California had about an 8 billion dollar budget shortfall. Under his enlightened rule we now have a 30 billion dollar budget shortfall. I’m not sure the citizens of the other 49 states can afford his kind of leadership.

Arnold is nothing but a gas bag who was able to dupe enough people to get elected twice. He is no Republican and no conservative.

skeneogden on December 22, 2008 at 4:38 PM

That is the most idiotic statement I’ve ever seen. Why have a counstituion or laws at all. Put it all to a vote!

Marine_Bio on December 22, 2008 at 4:11 PM

For crying out loud, read what I’ve written. I’ve always been talking about removing this constitutional requirement, not ignoring it.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Not to mention that you implicity trust the voters who can’t find the United States on a map of the United States, or who could tell you who just got kicked off American Idol but not why there are 365 1/4 days in a year.

Marine_Bio on December 22, 2008 at 4:15 PM

If we can’t trust the voters, what are we to do, have presidents appointed?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 4:44 PM

All I’ve done is hold up a mirror to you.

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 4:14 PM

It would help if you weren’t holding the shiny side of the mirror facing you.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 4:45 PM

So, Arnold thinks he is presidential material. As I remember when he took office California had about an 8 billion dollar budget shortfall. Under his enlightened rule we now have a 30 billion dollar budget shortfall.

skeneogden on December 22, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Kinda reminds me of Bush.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 4:46 PM

Ignoring the obvious

Clinton’s appointment as SOS is contrary to the constitution as written – the one Obama has to swear to uphold.

He himself has never proven eligibility for office (and I’m guessing that’s because he isn’t). So now the media supporting him support changing the constitution to legalize what’s already happened.

As in Duh? nobody here know a trial ballon when you see one?

Remember Obama’s comment about world reaction after his first ten to twelve years in power? Here’s a free prediction: that will be on the agenda soon.

Paul Murphy on December 22, 2008 at 5:03 PM

Besides, who needs an amendment? We’ve already elected a man born in Kenya. Austria would be an improvement.

But if Ahnuld wants to be a Republican President, he should stop running Collie-fornia like a girly-man Democrat. Otherwise he’ll get primaried out by a real Republican girl, Sarah Palin. If the Governator doesn’t believe this is possible, he should ask Frank Murkowski.

Steve Z on December 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM

If we can’t trust the voters, what are we to do, have presidents appointed?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 4:44 PM

Meanwhile, over at http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/22/video-new-york-democrats-republicans-dump-all-over-caroline/

the Geart one dribbles:

I’ve been in favor of assigning congressional seats by lottery for many years.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:28 PM

Mrak, what part of the constitution do you not think you could improve?

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 5:09 PM

Herr Fire Marshal Schwartzennegger misses another reason for fires in California, there are tooooo many friggin libtards there. The Lord is trying to send them a message to repent, but they keep on doing what they’re doing and so what choice does HE have but to burn down their mansions and send them fleeing.

eaglewingz08 on December 22, 2008 at 5:16 PM

Mrak, what part of the constitution do you not think you could improve?

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 5:09 PM

Obviously someone as smart, educated, and just heck fun to be around as I am, improves everything that comes close to him.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Build it ( a large enough ego) and they will come (and change their founding document).
Uhhh. Arnie, while I enjoyed watching a couple of your movies, you are NOT WORTH revoking the greatest single document in HISTORY for. Get over yourself.

KMC1 on December 22, 2008 at 5:23 PM

Looks like I’ve picked up my own personal stalker. That makes three now. If my count is right, I just need one more to take over the lead.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Who’d have thought that the terminator would turn into such a squishy liberal. He never played one in his films. Well, there was the one where he got pregnant.

keep the change on December 22, 2008 at 5:27 PM

Correction, Ed: the Constitution requires “natural-born”, not “native”.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on December 22, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Constitution Schmonstitution, it doesn’t apply to anything else, why should this be different?

Harpoon on December 22, 2008 at 5:39 PM

As a Californian, I say not just No, but F*ck No to Arnold as Prez.

pseudonominus on December 22, 2008 at 5:44 PM

Wasn’t there another Austrian who was a naturalized citizen who became the leader [Fuehrer] of his adopted country [Germany]? No naturalized Austrians for Fuehrer, er… President.

prkw on December 22, 2008 at 5:54 PM

The reality is that we don’t need a constitutional Amendment. We now have precedence. Obama is not a natural born citizen. In order to be a natural born citizen you have to be born on US soil and both parents must be US citizens; therefore, Obama is not a natural born citizen. This means there is now precedence for a person who is not a natural born US citizen to be POTUS. Sign the petition please: http://www.rallycongress.com/concerned-americans/1445/any-person-running-president-must-prove-natural-born-citizenship-status/

veerite on December 22, 2008 at 6:54 PM

“The fire season has been extended by climate change”? Really?

Like you Ed, I lived in California for most of my life – just about 50 years.

With regards to the fire season, I’d always get a kick out of the OC Register headlines each year:

“Fire Season Critical Due to Winter Drought”

— the next year

“Fire Season Critical Due to Winter Rains”

Rod on December 22, 2008 at 7:03 PM

I bet he can come up with a Hawaian birth acknowledgement and then go to Germany, poison his grandmother and hide his real one..just sharing best practices.

Alden Pyle on December 22, 2008 at 9:47 AM

That’s all fine and good, except the fact that Arnie is an AUSTRIAN, not a GERMAN citizen. He still is, as he holds dual citizenship (Austria & US).

bryan2369 on December 22, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Hey,, yeah,, he can do to America what he’s done to California!
I’m sure more than a few RINO’s would love it.

JellyToast on December 22, 2008 at 7:13 PM

For all of you that are entertaining the idea of anyone other than a Natural Born Citizen being POTUS….
Read the Constitution…jeez…
However, if a Con Con is conviened (only two more states to do so)…well…all bets are off… L&L.

jerrytbg on December 22, 2008 at 8:13 PM

Thanks Gov, I must be living in the Stone Age. Oh wait, the Stone Age occurred during the Ice Age as well, which due to sunspot inactivity, we might be facing a taste of it yet again.

It´s good to know that chief executives base their environmental policies without needing to reference the prime motivator of the Earth´s temperature – the Sun.

Multibucket on December 22, 2008 at 10:14 PM

I am against Congress and the states amending the Constitution to allow non-native-born citizens the ability to become President.

apacalyps on December 22, 2008 at 10:46 PM

I live in CA, and supported Gov. Arnold against G. Davis in the recall…………

Arnold tried to go up against the Teacher’s and Labor Unions that run this state with his propositions early on, but $50 million didn’t go up well against over $250 million from unions all over the country, the MSM in the tank for the Democrat controlled state legislature, La Raza, ACORN, and all the usual suspects…………

………… it was time for truth. He got a visit from “Uncle “I have a headache” the Swimmer Ted Kennedy”, and was informed that if he wanted any future in politics, forget the Conservative Base that voted him into office, and start playing “the game”…….

……. now, California is bankrupt, over run by illegals, the unions run everything, our schools are propaganda machines for the Democrats, and laws are “selectively” enforced.

………….. and now he wants to be President.

I guess once you sell your soul……………. it gets easy.

Seven Percent Solution on December 23, 2008 at 1:53 AM

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 5:09 PM

If got this radical new concept that you have obviously never heard of, it’s called reality.

Out here in the real world, we recognize that different problems require different solutions.
For example, when I see a screw, I reach for a screwdriver.
When I see a nail, I reach for a hammer.
When I encounter an idiot, I reach for the industrial grade sarcasm.

Now I’ll slow down so that you can keep up.

1) Congressmen are not presidents.
2) The responsibilities of a congressman differ from that of a president.
3) The circumstances under whic a congressman differ from that of a president.

Out here in the real world, we recognize that sometimes differing circumstances require different rules.

There’s only one president and he’s under heavy press scrutiny at all times. So we know what he’s doing.
There are 535 congressmen and senators. Those inleadership positions get press coverage from time to time. Those not in leadership are pretty much ignored. It’s very hard to almost impossible for an average citizen to keep up with what they are doing.

The president is limited to two terms.
Congressmen and senators can keep running forever.

The president doesn’t have the power to slip items into a bill totally unseen by everyone. Congressmen and senators do.

As you see, there are many differences between a president and congressmen and senators.

So your claim that I’m somehow inconsistent because I believe in different voting schemes for the two offices just shows how little you know of the real world.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 6:52 AM

Read the Constitution…jeez…

jerrytbg on December 22, 2008 at 8:13 PM

Before you read the constitution, how about reading what we have been saying.
The argument is about the merits of changing the constitution.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 6:54 AM

MarkTheGreat…
You’re still on this. You seem to feel passionate about this, so, I will try to put this to you one more time. There is danger in what you are trying to put forward with regard to changing the constitution.

Trying this by analogy…
When you crack open the foundation of a building, you run the risk of damaging the entire structure or even subjecting it to structural failure. Sometimes you have to do this kind of work, but it is something that should be done with great thought and precision.

This country is divided about 50-50 on so many issues that it is staggering. Look at abortion, should it be in the constitution? There are those who would argue that it is a right and would love to have it included. Does that mean it should be? How about gay marriage? How about incest? As a biologist, I can tell you that it is destructive to the fabric of a society to embrace “rights” that do not encourage the future growth of a nation. As a Christian I can tell you that the morality problems with these “rights” are destructive as well.

Calling a constitutional convention to change frivolous things, like the natural born citizen clause, opens the door to changing other pieces that you may not want to have changed. Name the enumerated rights in the constitution that you are willing to place into jeopardy to change a clause that you don’t see as relevant, but does not cause harm.

My answer is none, which is why I’m passionate about NOT doing this. I want to keep the right to bear arms, so that if I inherit my grandfather’s guns, I don’t have to turn them in. I want to keep my right to have discussion with people, regardless of how obtuse they are being.

That is why the founding fathers originally set up the constitution so that it could be amended in a fairly straightforward way, and for the really big changes, a constitutional convention could be called if needed, but the process involved is really onerous. They had far more wisdom than most in today’s society are willing to give them credit for.

What you’re calling for has the very likely consequence of causing structural failure for the United States. What is the probability of the country benefiting from the change? You’re asking for a change that would have a probability of being significant far below what is reasonable. My estimate of the probability of benefit…p<<0.0000001.

Think about it.

Marine_Bio on December 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM

Marine_bio,

You seem to be familiar with the constitution so you should be aware that there is more than one way to ammend the constitution.

I agree that a con-con is a bad idea at this time, which is why I never suggested such a thing.

Secondly, an idea is still a good idea, even if there is no practical way to implement it at this time.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 9:43 AM

I can tell you that it is destructive to the fabric of a society to embrace “rights” that do not encourage the future growth of a nation

Point of clarification…Future growth means the population, not economics.

Without encouraging the populace to reproduce, the nation is left two choices. Depend upon immigration or die.

Marine_Bio on December 23, 2008 at 9:44 AM

I am passionate when I hear people who claim to be conservatives putting people down for the crime of not being physically born in the US.

I find it very offensive when people declare that apriori, such people must be less patriotic than those born here.

I can’t find any evidence to support such an assumption. I know many immigrants, and let me tell you, on the whole, they are more patriotic than many people who were born here in the US. On the whole they are much more gratefull for the rights and priveledges they are allowed to enjoy here than are many born here Americans.

I would think that based on your military background, you would be familiar with many such people as well.
Heck, you don’t even have to be a citizen to serve in the armed forces. And many people who don’t have full citizenship have served with distinction and have earned many of our nations highest awards.

The issue of whether it is a good idea to try and ammend the constitution at this point in time, is not relevant to whether removing this restriction is a good idea or not.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Let me try to draw a military analogy.

Step one: Deciding if that hill is worth taking, or if we can go around it.

Step Two: If the answer to step one is take the hill, then and only then do we spend time deciding exactly when and how do we take the hill.

I am arguing step one, and you are arguing that we have to complete step two before we decide if step one is a good idea.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Did the most recent ammendement to pass, the one that changed when congressmen can get pay raises cause the structural collapse of the US?

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 9:53 AM

Mark,
You’re right, you haven’t been calling for a constitutional convention, so I apologize for that piece of confusion. We are close to having one called as one of the other posters pointed out, so there was a little bit of frustration that was blended into what I was saying.

Now, this statement illustrates why I don’t think you have connected with what I’ve written.

You seem to be familiar with the constitution so you should be aware that there is more than one way to ammend the constitution.

That’s what I just said. (emphasis added for illustation)

That is why the founding fathers originally set up the constitution so that it could be amended in a fairly straightforward way, and for the really big changes, a constitutional convention could be called if needed, but the process involved is really onerous. They had far more wisdom than most in today’s society are willing to give them credit for.

OK?

Incidentally, there is a constitutional basis for having different election processes with the different offices, so I didn’t jump in. Senators were elected by the state legislatures, and were originally supposed to be the representatives of STATE interests in the federal government. That was changed, and in my opinion it was a bad idea. What we have today is a body of 100 SUPER Congressmen, who pander to the popular vote just as much as the other house. It wasn’t meant to be this way. George Washington was the one who really championed the Senate, and it was suppose to be the state level check to the legislation the peoples elected officials wanted to pass.

Which provides a bit more background and brings me to this..

Secondly, an idea is still a good idea, even if there is no practical way to implement it at this time.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 9:43 AM

If the idea is about changing a clause that does no harm to the country, how does that become a good idea?

Marine_Bio on December 23, 2008 at 10:07 AM

I am arguing step one, and you are arguing that we have to complete step two before we decide if step one is a good idea.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 9:52 AM

No.

I am arguing that the hill isn’t worth taking because there is only one person at the top.

Marine_Bio on December 23, 2008 at 10:10 AM

Mark,
The difference between the military and the president is where they fit into foreign policy. The military is the active extension of a foreign policy. The president makes foreign policy.

What I’m saying is that if you compare this more apropriately, by examining the change of electing senators from a popular vote, you get a better picture. The change altered their focus, it didn’t crumble the structure of the united states, but it did place a crack in the foundation.

The change you’re talking about doesn’t rise to the level of being a rational change. How many people are are being excluded by leaving this in place? If that averages out to to 1 person every four years, what does that matter? They still have to get past the gauntlet of an undereducated electorate.

Run the probabilities, if there is a 0.01% increase in the number of potential candidates, I would be surprised. But where is the significant benefit of that?

Marine_Bio on December 23, 2008 at 10:20 AM

If the idea is about changing a clause that does no harm to the country, how does that become a good idea?

Marine_Bio on December 23, 2008 at 10:07 AM

I disagree that it does no harm.
It’s an embarasment to this country and it flies in the face of our egalitarian traditions.

It appears that there can be no meeting of the minds between us on this subject so I’m going to drop it.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 10:28 AM

So as long as the number of people being screwed is small, lets just live with it??

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 10:29 AM

Who’d have thought that the terminator would turn into such a squishy liberal. He never played one in his films.

Too right! Didn’t Arnold used to be a man?

I hear California is going broke.
How does the saying go? If California is broke, don’t fix it. ;)

Sterling Holobyte on December 23, 2008 at 10:58 AM

It appears that there can be no meeting of the minds between us on this subject so I’m going to drop it.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 10:28 AM

I thought you were going to cease.
If you’re willing to answer this, it may be illuminating. What is the harm you believe to be caused by this clause?

(Your perceived embarrassment and conflict with nonexistent egalitarian traditions are not harm)

So as long as the number of people being screwed is small, lets just live with it??

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 10:29 AM

Dude, where is your sense of reality. EVERYTHING works that way. You may have some feelings about it being cold, but guess what, it is reality. Here’s a good example, how do you think medications pass the FDA tests? No medicine is ever 100% safe for everyone. It sure sucks to be you if you’re one of the 0.0001% of the population who has a seizure from the medication, but the rest of the population is safe, so it’s approved. This is why drug commercials always place the disclaimers about side reactions in the broadcast. Pay attention to one, some of the side effects of these medications are pretty heinous.

The cut off is typically 95% for most efforts, so even giving that much credence to your argument, what we have is a law of diminishing returns scenario. The effort expended to benefit ration gets higher as you try to tweak minor flaws. And believe me a natural born citizen clause is only a minor flaw at best.

Marine_Bio on December 23, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Doh.

The effort expended to benefit ration ratio gets higher as you try to tweak minor flaws. And believe me a natural born citizen clause is only a minor flaw at best.

Marine_Bio on December 23, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Marine_Bio on December 23, 2008 at 11:04 AM

It’s an embarasment to this country and it flies in the face of our egalitarian traditions.

Mark, this one just bothers. Who is embarrassed? Are you? I think most Americans would be hard pressed to feel embarrassed because we don’t allow people born on foreign soil to become president. Most of the nations that may feel that we have some inconsistency have either had their butts saved by the US, or their butts kicked by the US, or are in some way dependent upon the US, or are so impoverished that they’re still third world nations.

It’s called living by the rules we have chosen to live by, and there is not one country that we should be modeling ourselves on or feel like we answer to. So where is the embarrassment?

Marine_Bio on December 23, 2008 at 11:41 AM

If you found out that one of your buddies had been left behind during a fire fight, would tell the rest of your squad to forget about him? After all, it’s just one man.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 12:32 PM

The embarrassment is that we claim that we judge all men by the content of their character.
The lie is that we consider those who were born here to be better than those who weren’t.

The rule benefits no one and causes us to miss out on available talent.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 12:33 PM

If you found out that one of your buddies had been left behind during a fire fight, would tell the rest of your squad to forget about him? After all, it’s just one man.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 12:32 PM

Are you daft or intentionally being obtuse? Sometimes these kinds of choices need to be made, but you are personalizing this in a way that is irrelevant. Your example is not equivalent to a clinical situation; it is a personal situation between comrades in the duress of a warzone. A requirement embedded in a document is more analogous to a clinical situation because it is prior to the situation. Unless you have a personal relationship with an excluded person, in which case you can offer your condolences.

The embarrassment is that we claim that we judge all men by the content of their character.
The lie is that we consider those who were born here to be better than those who weren’t.

The rule benefits no one and causes us to miss out on available talent.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 12:33 PM

So not meeting the criteria in the rules is the same as not judging a man by the content of their character? How so? They are not restricted from anything else in the country, including speaker of the house, which is where the insanity falls into place. If you don’t know what I mean, research where the speaker falls in a succession to the presidency.

If the foundational document has a problem due to this simple criterion, by that same logic, why wait until age 35? Let’s get rid of that criterion too, because we might miss out on valuable talent because they might have Huntington’s disease and we don’t want to discriminate against those suffering with genetic diseases.

Get real. Your view of life in the United States is really narrow, and severely hampered by your emotional attachments. Life isn’t fair, was never promised to be fair, and the US is not and has never been an egalitarian society in theory or in practice.

Want to live in one? Good luck finding one, because this is as close as it gets. For the US to keep things where they are, we must follow the rules and prevent erosions. Sometimes rules need changing if the situations radically change, but a criterion modification does not rise to the level of meeting that situational change. You can provide no example of harm, and quite frankly I tire of your rhetoric about justifying this change by stating that it causes us to miss out on talent, which is the only truly consistent vein through your arguments.

So, I’ll bite, by your own argument, you seem to think we are missing the next Reagan, by excluding naturalized citizens. Name one person who would be as effective in the presidency as Reagan, and is not a natural born citizen, that we’re missing out on. If you can’t, then you’re working in the theoretical, and you must look at probabilities to begin to make a rationalization for changing the document.

Oh, and just in case this is a point I missed, Arnold has a proven track record of incompetency, and does not meet the level of stellar candidate I’m talking about.

Marine_Bio on December 23, 2008 at 1:29 PM

So as long as you don’t personally know the person who is getting screwed, it’s ok to keep a rule that benefits no one in the constitution?

BTW, I’ve stated at least 3 times that I do not support Arnie for president.

I don’t oppose this clause because I support Arnie, I oppose this clause because it is a bad rule.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 1:35 PM

but you are personalizing this in a way that is irrelevant.

The key to sending people to the gas chamber, is to never think of them as people.

Once you start dehumanizing people, telling yourself it’s ok to sacrifice them in the name of the greater good, it never stops.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 1:39 PM

So as long as you don’t personally know the person who is getting screwed, it’s ok to keep a rule that benefits no one in the constitution

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Ok, not what I said. I said if you know someone who is excluded, feel free to apologize for the unfair nature of the US constitution. I’ll tell them life isn’t fair or to pound sand depending upon who it is.

The clause as stated, benefits everyone, and I can find no evidence from your statements that you have any intention of deviating.

BTW, I couldn’t remember your position on Arnorld, but was preventing a worthless line of discussion.

I say again, since you think this is a bad rule.

Name one person who would be as effective in the presidency as Reagan, and is not a natural born citizen, that we’re missing out on.

If you can’t, then you’re working in the theoretical, and you must look at probabilities to begin to make a rationalization for changing the document if you ever hope to make headway with a rational person.

Marine_Bio on December 23, 2008 at 1:43 PM

The key to sending people to the gas chamber, is to never think of them as people.

Once you start dehumanizing people, telling yourself it’s ok to sacrifice them in the name of the greater good, it never stops.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Again with the personalizing. A criterion being disparaged as a bad rule is not personal. The discussion is not eugenic in nature, nor is it dehumanizing for a single job in the united states to be impossible to acheive due to immigration status.

I say again, since you think this is a bad rule.

Name one person who would be as effective in the presidency as Reagan, and is not a natural born citizen, that we’re missing out on.

If you can’t, then you’re working in the theoretical, and you must look at probabilities to begin to make a rationalization for changing the document if you ever hope to make headway with a rational person.

Marine_Bio on December 23, 2008 at 1:46 PM

So, I’ll bite, by your own argument, you seem to think we are missing the next Reagan, by excluding naturalized citizens. Name one person who would be as effective in the presidency as Reagan, and is not a natural born citizen, that we’re missing out on.

Speaking of offering irrational arguments.

I don’t need to name the person. The law of statistics alone is enough to prove that the larger your pool of possible candidates, the better your chances of finding the best candidate.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 1:55 PM

The clause as stated, benefits everyone, and I can find no evidence from your statements that you have any intention of deviating.

The law as stated benefits nobody, except those who are convinced that foreigners are inferior to the native born.

If a candidate is defective, then let the voters decide.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 1:56 PM

You are the one who has been claiming over and over and over again, that people who have been born outside the US can’t be trusted. I would expect you to provide some evidence that this is true of everyone born outside the US and is not true of everyone born inside.

Since you can’t, it leaves you open to the charge of being a bigot.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Speaking of offering irrational arguments.

I don’t need to name the person. The law of statistics alone is enough to prove that the larger your pool of possible candidates, the better your chances of finding the best candidate.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 1:55 PM

Good luck on that tactic, the numbers are against you. In any given election, you have a pool of candidates for POTUS that is VERY SMALL. Providing for both major parties parties, and say an average of 6 candidates from each party, plus say 4 other minor party candidates. That totals out to 16 people, out of a nation of 300 million people. You honestly think that adding a couple more people will make a statistically significant difference?

(It doesn’t, I’ll save you the brain cells.)

I do believe you’re simply being obtuse at this point. The clause is there because the founding fathers placed the best guarantee of loyalty to the United States that you could possibly argue in writing. Is it perfect, NO, but if you want to change it, define it in a way is as effective. In the absence of a better definition, it is at least a parameter that removes one ugly variable. Not bigotry, not inferiority, not trustworthy nature only being born in the US, but a way of trying to guarantee that the president places interest of the United States above other interests. THAT IS WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING. How would you parameterize qualifications to guarantee loyalty?

OR in the absence of that parameterization, name a person who would be a stellar president, but can’t run due to the structure of the constitution.

If a candidate is defective, then let the voters decide.
MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 1:56 PM

Now this is priceless. It assumes the ultimate wisdom resides with the voters, which even the founding fathers didn’t think. Article II, section 1 describes the Electoral College, the real body that votes for the president. Electoral College members are appointed by legislatures of each state, and the wisdom of these bodies was what the founding fathers depended upon for making good choices in their selections of who could vote for president. It has been bastardized with the popular vote, and I strongly urge you to educate youself on what the difference is between a Democracy and what we use in the United States, because it is eye opening.

Marine_Bio on December 23, 2008 at 2:50 PM

I would expect you to provide some evidence that this is true of everyone born outside the US and is not true of everyone born inside.

Since you can’t, it leaves you open to the charge of being a bigot.

MarkTheGreat on December 23, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Aside from the fact that this isn’t what I said, this argument is a logical fallacy. I’m not the one supporting changes to the constitution. The onus is upon the argument for changing the constitution to provide exemplary evidence of why the change is necessary.

Name a person. That would be the simplest, least problematic method I would find acceptable in support of your argument.

Marine_Bio on December 23, 2008 at 3:13 PM

I support the Constitution as it was written and intended.

Arnie Schwartzenkennedy if a fool in the worst sense and seemingly hates both the California and U.S. Constitution.
Arnie, go back to Austria and take your anorexic hag of a wife with you.

nelsonknows on December 24, 2008 at 12:23 AM

God no! He’s ruining our state, we don’t want him f’ing up our country… he should go back to Hollywood and make more horrible holiday movies, like Jingle All the Way.

Cr4sh Dummy on December 24, 2008 at 5:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3